dismissed EB-3

dismissed EB-3 Case: Nursing

๐Ÿ“… Date unknown ๐Ÿ‘ค Company ๐Ÿ“‚ Nursing

Decision Summary

The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to follow procedural requirements. The petitioner stated they would submit a brief or additional evidence but failed to do so, and did not identify a specific, erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the director's decision.

Criteria Discussed

8 C.F.R. ยง 103.3(A)(1)(V) (Summary Dismissal)

Sign up free to download the original PDF

View Full Decision Text
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 0-P-M-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE II, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a starting company, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "registered nurse." It 
requests classification of the Beneficiary as a skilled worker under the third preference immigrant 
classification. Immigration and Nationality Act section 203(b)(3)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
ยง 1153(b)(3)(A)(i). This employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to 
sponsor a foreign national for lawful permanent resident status to work in a position that requires at 
least two years of training or experience. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition and atlirmed the denial after the 
Petitioner filed a motion to reopen. The matter is now before us on appeal. Upon review, we will 
summarily dismiss the appeal. 
An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any appeal when the party concerned 
fails to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 
8 C.F.R. ยง 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The Petitioner did not provide a statement in support of the appeal that specifically identifies an 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the decision being appealed. On the Form 
I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the Petitioner stated that a brief or additional evidence would 
be submitted within 30 clays of the February 13,2018, tiling date. However, we have not received 
anything further from the Petitioner to date. Because the Petitioner has not identified a spceilie, 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision below, the appeal must be 
summarily dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. ยง 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Cite as Mallero(O-P-M-, lD# 1559380 (AAO June 11, 2018) 
Using this case in a petition? Let MeritDraft draft the argument →

Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial

MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.

Avoid This in My Petition →

No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.